Odeh and Others v Arab Republic of Egypt (Communication 625 of 2016) [2018] ACHPR 121 (18 October 2018)

'AFRICAN UNION UNION AFRICAINE UNIAO AFRICANA African Commission on Humon & Peoples· Rights Commission Africaine des Droits de /'Homme & des Peuples 31 Biji/o Annex Layout, Kombo North District, Western Region, P. 0 . Box 673, Banjul, TheGambia Tel: (220) 4410505 / 4410506; Fax: (220) 4410504 E-mail: au-ban ·u1 africa-union.or · Web www.ach .or, Communication 625/16 Basem Kamali Mohammed Odeh (represented by AED and 4 ors) V Arab Republic of Egypt Adopted by the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights during the 23rd Extra-Ordinary Session,from 13"' to 22"" Feb,uary 2018 Banjul, The Gambia ~ •.••..•.•.....•.....•...•...••...••.•••••••.•• I Dr. Mary Maboreke Secretmy to the African Commission on Human and Peoples, Rights Communication 625/16 - Basem Kamali Mohammed Odeh (represented by AED and 4 ors) v Arab Republic of Egypt Summary of the Complaint 1. The Secretariat of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights (the Secretariat) received a Complaint on 04 May 2016 from AED and ors (the Complainants) on behalf of Mr. Basem Kamali Mohammed Odeh (the Victim) against the Arab Republic of Egyptl (the Responclent>State). 2. The Complainants submit that they have be n authorized by the Victim to represent him in this case. 3. The Complainant avers that on 03 uly 2013),a discnminatory ~ ilitary,: coup took violated all human rights, and sought to place in the Respondent State wni eliminate a specific sector of tlte Egyp ·an society, being the sector that opposed the coup against the government that was fairly and freely elected by the people of Egypt. It allege~ that the coui;, leaders (hereinafter, the Authorities) who espondent State committed subsequently assumed discriminatory seS!e ation through killing, enforced d inm tes, including violating the disappearances, and torture ot prisoners rights of w dmen, children ~ d minors in tlefention. It further avers that the victims of these iilleged acts were denied their right to defence due to the arrests and falsification of allegations against awyers who represented them in order to pressurize them to discontinue their relev~t legal services. f a s~t6" of Egyptian leadership 0 the 4. The Cofllplaina~t also claims that! the Authorities deprived people of their iolated freedom o thinking especially that of university lecturers nation lities, and generally turned Egypt into a large prison to terrify the Egyptian people, through lawlessness and in blatant breach of international human _rights law. 5. More specifically, the Complainant alleges that the family of the Victim is one of several families that suffered at the hands of the Authorities after the coup. It avers that the Victim is an Egyptian national born on 16 March 1975, resides in Cairo City Egypt, and is married with children. 6. The Complainants aver that the Victim, a former Minister of Supply and Internal Trade and Professor of Engineering in the Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University was arrested on 12 November 2013. 1The Republic of Egypt ratified the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on 20 March, 1984 7. The Complainants allege that the Authorities falsified charges against the Victim and that the Victim was indicted in four trials in which he was sentenced to life imprisonment in three, the total verdict being seventy-five years and the fourth case is still pending before the court. 8. The Complainants allege that while in detention, the Victim was tortured and subjected to inhumane treatment, including: being put in a tiny poorly ventilated cell with no bed; denial of visitation rights; denial of access to medication; clean water; denial of access to newspapers and writing materials; prevention from carrying money; denial of medical care and denial of access to legal representation. 9. The Complainants alleged that the/ Victim was tried in: C-ase 7294 of 2013 - 'the issue of the Protest in the road Qualioub' where the Vktim was accused of life associating with protesters and sentenced alongside 37 other,s imprisonment; Case 1818 of 2013 -'t e issue o{Ostqaamh mosque' where he was sentenced to life imprisonment with eight others; Case 11531 of 2013 -'the issue of events of the Great Sea Street' where the instruction of the Court of Cassation for a re-trial of the c~e before another judicial district after the successful appeal of the Victim against I\i sentence 1£ life ,impris ~ent was never carried out by the authorities and lastly, Cape number 34150 of 20~5 which is pending before the Court. to 10. The Complainants claim that the Complaint has been filed within a reasonable time in accordance with Article '56(6) of the Charter, after awaiting the outCOJne/judgments qf the Egyptian courts, and finally that the Complaint has not \been P.resented before any other international dispute settlement forum for settlement ~ raad judica tion. , Articles alleged to have been violated 11. The Complainant alleges that the Respondent State has violated Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 19, 60 aXJ.d 61 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights. Procedure 12. The Secretariat received the Complaint on 04 May 2016 and acknowledged receipt on 18 May 2016. 13. The African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights (the Commission) was seized of the Communication during the 20th Extra-Ordinary Session of the Commission, held from 09 to 18 June 2016. 14. By letter and note verbale dated 24 June 2016 the Complainant and the Respondent State were informed of the decision to be seized and the Complainant was requested to present evidence and arguments on admissibility within two (2) months. 15. By letter and note verbale dated 22 November 2016 the Complainant and the Respondent State were informed that the Communication was deferred during the 59th Ordinary Session, pending receipt of the Complainant's submissions on admissibility. By the same communication;.fthe C~mplainant was reminded to submit submissions on admissibility witfil one (1~ month, failing which it would be struck out for lack of diligent prosecution. 16. By note verbale dated 13 March 2017 and received"at the Secr.etariat on 17 March 2017, the Respondent State forwarded its su6missio~ ort admissibility. 17. By letter and note verbale dated 11 July 2017 the Secretariat informed the Parties that the Communication was deferred during the 60th Ordinary. Session. ~ 18. By note verbale dated 1 August Z.017 and rec) ived at the Secretariat on 19 October 2017, the Respondent State indicated that_,,the Complainant had not made their suomissions on admissibility within the required time frame and requested th t the Communication b~e struck out. "II ~ < 19. By~letter and note verbale dated 20 SeRtember 2017 the Secretariat informed the Pa ties that the Com · lainant had been granted an additional thirty (30) days witRi.tl which to submi~ on a9 missibility, failing which the Communication would, Be struck out for lack ofctili~ nt prosecution. 20. In a note verbale dated ""27 October 2017 received at the Secretariat on 24 November 2017, the Respondent State indicated that the additional time had expired and thus requested the Commission to strike out the Communication. Analysis of the Commission to strike out 21. Rule 105(1) of the Commission's Rules of Procedure establishes that when the Commission has decided to be seized of a Communication, it shall request the Complainant to present arguments on Admissibility within two (2) months. 22. Rule 113 provides that when a deadline is fixed for a particular submission, either party may apply to the Commission for extension of the period stipulated. The Commission may grant an extension of time for a period not longer than one (1) month. 23. In this case, the Complainant was requested to present evidence and arguments on the admissibility of the Communication within two (2) months from the date of notification of the seizure decision, which had expired on 24 August 2016. However, the Complainant did not present any evidence and arguments within the stipulated time. The said period was extended by the Commission for a period of 30 calendar days and same had exij_ired n the 22 December 2016. 24. During its 22nd Extraordinary Session which took place from 29 July to 07 August 2017, in Dakar, Republic of Senegal, the Commission decided, because it was not satisfied that the Complainant has received the earlier correspondences based on the evidence on re;ord, to~ anted the Complainant a further period of 30 calendar days from the da e of notification to submit evidence and arguments on the admissibility of the abov . mentioned Communication. ) 25. More than three (3) months have lapsed since the expiry of the last extended period and nd e( idence and arguments Have been submitted by the Complainant on the admissibility of the Communication. Tii re is also evidence on record that the Complainant has received the letter granting further extension of time to submit on admissibility. "" '!ill 27. The Comivission takes note of its jurisprudence, including Communication 594/15: Mohammed Ramacl.an Mahmoud Fayad Allah v. the Arab Republic of Egypt, Communication 612/].6: Ahmed Mohammed Ali Subaie v. the Arab Republic of Egyp\, Communication 41Z/12L Journal Echos du Nord v. Gabon and Communication 387/10: Kofi Yamagnane v. The Republic of Togo, which were similarly struck out for want of diligent prosecution. Decision of the Commission 28. In view of the above, the Commission decides to strike out the Communication for lack of diligent prosecution. Done at the 23rd Extra-Ordinary Session of the Commission held in Banjul, The Gambia from 13 to 22 February 2018